Topology Problem 1: Show A is Open in X - Munkres pg 83

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter waht
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Topology
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a problem from Munkres regarding the definition of open sets in topology. Participants are exploring the conditions under which a subset A of a topological space X can be shown to be open, based on the existence of open sets contained within A for each point in A. The scope includes theoretical reasoning and mathematical proof techniques.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses uncertainty about how an open subset of A implies that A itself is open.
  • Another participant states the definitions of open sets, including that arbitrary unions of open sets are open and finite intersections are open.
  • A participant proposes that A can be expressed as the union of open sets U_n, suggesting that this implies A is open.
  • Another participant agrees but emphasizes the need to prove that A equals the union of the U's.
  • A further suggestion is made to define O as the union of all open sets U(x) containing points in A and to show that O is open and equals A.
  • One participant critiques another's understanding of definitions and suggests that they may need to strengthen their foundational knowledge in mathematical proofs.
  • A later reply shares the participant's background in mathematics and their self-study efforts with Munkres, indicating a desire to understand topology despite feeling overwhelmed.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the definitions of open sets and the approach to proving that A is open. However, there is disagreement regarding the participant's understanding of the material and the adequacy of their mathematical background for tackling the problem.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express concern about foundational gaps in understanding mathematical proofs, which may affect the ability to engage with the problem effectively. There is also a mention of the need for basic rules of mathematical logic, indicating potential limitations in the discussion.

waht
Messages
1,502
Reaction score
4
This is a problem 1 from Munkres pg 83. I'm trying to solve for self study.

Let X be a topological space; let A be a subset of X. Suppose that for each x belonging in A there is an open set U containing x such that U is a subset of A. Show that A is open in X.

I'm not sure exactly how an open subset of A makes the whole A open.

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
By definition, X and the empty set are open in X. Also, an arbitrary union of open sets is open, and a finite intersection of open sets is open.
 
re

This is what I came up with,

Given an open set U sub n (where n belongs to J) containing x, then

A = The union of U sub n (n belongs to J) , by definition "an arbitrary union of open sets is open"

hence A is open,

would this be ok, thanks
 
Yes, that's right. But you have to prove that A is equal to the union of those U's.
 
So for each x in A, there exists an open set U(x) such that [itex]x \in U(x) \subseteq A[/itex].

Let O be the union of all such open sets, [itex]O = \bigcup_{x \in A} U(x)[/itex].

Show that O is open, and that O = A.

(Remember, the union of any collection of open sets is open, by definition).
 
what, you seem to need to practice reading definitions and using them directly. this problem is almost completely trivial logically, so not getting it may mean you have a gap in understanding doing proofs.

you might want to consult some elementary proof books, like An introduction to mathematical thinking, or Principles of mathematics, or even the logic chapter of Harold Jacobs excellent high school book Geometry, since many high schools no longer offer such fine geometry training including proofs.

I am also puzzled that you find yourself in a course like Munkres without this training. Does your school offer a proofs course which you may have missed? If so, you might try that first. Or do they just think plunging right into Munkres is sufficient practice in making proofs?

You really need basic rules of mathematical logic first.

best wishes.
 
re

I would love to take a topology course since I find it so fascinating but it is not going to happen. So I purchased a copy of Munkres based on excellent reviews and I'm studying it at my spare time.

My math background is past diffrential equations and linear algebra, but have been studying other subjects when time allowed. At the beginning, such elementary proof seemed impossible but I'm starting to connect the dots. I still don't get even 1% of the book heh.

Thanks for the help
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
6K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K